State v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 130 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Tokar (1996), State v. Parker (1994)
4 federal appellate · 130 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Faretta v. California · Chimel v. California · Payton v. New York · Rakas v. Illinois
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you must consider whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Carson · State v. Parker“1. Whether the defendant murdered Elizabeth A. DeCaro for another, for the purpose of defendant receiving money or any other thing of monetary value from Elizabeth A. DeCaro or another. 2. Whether the defendant, as agent or employee of Richard DeCaro and at his direction, murdered Elizabeth A. DeCaro.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Simmons · State v. Basile“A defendant is competent to stand trial if he has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and has “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788, 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per cu- riam); accord Drope v. Missouri 420 U.S. 162, 171 , 95 S.Ct. 896, 903 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (a criminal defendant must have the “capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense”). “Requiring that a criminal defendant be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.” Godinez v. Moran, - U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2688 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reece v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.